Board of Audit and Inspection 2011 depth0427

It is difficult to see that the money remitted by the non-party company to the PC bank business is related to the processing transaction.

Considering the fact that the Plaintiff left the distribution margin in the process of issuing the tax invoice leading to the non-party company, the Plaintiff, and the PC bank business operator, and the date the non-party company remitted to the PC bank business operator prior to the date of preparing the tax invoice, the non-party company that received the remittance of the money from the PC bank business operator via the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have re-transfered the money to the PC bank business operator.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, 10437

XX Co., Ltd

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

October 10, 2012

October 26, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the second period of 2007 against the Plaintiff on October 7, 201 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 25, 2008, the Plaintiff submitted each purchase tax invoice listed in Table 1 and each sales tax invoice listed in Table 2 below to the Defendant, and reported and paid the value-added tax for the second period of 2007.

Purchase Tax Invoice and Transfered Records, etc.

(3) The following table 1 omitted:

[Attachment 2] Sales Tax Invoice

(2) The following Table 2 omitted:

B. On October 7, 2011, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a sales tax invoice of the supply value lower than the actual value of the goods so that the PC may obtain a facility leasing financing from the Plaintiff, and additionally issued the purchase tax invoice of the supply value equivalent to the total value softened from the actual value of the goods, from the ZZ system (hereinafter “ZZ system”). When the facility leasing company received facility loans from the facility leasing company and transfers the funds to the non-party company to the same amount as the purchase price for the purchase account, the non-party company re-transfers the funds excluding value-added tax, out of the amount equivalent to the supply value of the purchase tax invoice issued additionally from the account of HongA, which is the borrowed account, to the account of the PC bank. Therefore, on the ground that each purchase tax invoice listed in Table 1 and each sales tax invoice listed in Table 2, the total sum of KRW 000 and KRW 000,000,000 (including additional tax) was written without real transaction, the instant disposition (hereinafter referred to as “instant”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review, but was dismissed by the Board of Audit and Inspection on December 28, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-4, 4-6-4, 6-9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, and 13 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The entry in the column of “Plaintiff’s Claim” in Table 1, Table 2.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Upon receipt of a request for additional loan from the PCB business operator, the Defendant, the representative director of the non-party company, as the company arranging loans to the PCB, issued the purchase tax invoice of the supply value higher than the actual price of the goods, and issued the PCB to the non-party company. The non-party company transferred the money equivalent to the processed purchase tax invoice to the PCB business operator’s account. The non-party company claimed that the Plaintiff purchased 00 won out of 19 November 19, 2007, 00 won out of 00 won, 00 won out of 200 won, 100 won out of 200 won, 200 won out of 14 December 10, 2007, 200 won out of 10 won, 200 won out of 20 won, 200 won, 30 won, 200 won, 200 won, 207, 300 won, 200 won, 2007.

(2) However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the money transferred to Haddd is a processed purchase (the Plaintiff asserted that Hadddd is an employee of the headquarters unique to the head office of XX electronic head office, and the Defendant did not conduct an investigation into Haddd, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.)

② According to Gap evidence 2 through 8 (including paper numbers) and Eul evidence 3, the plaintiff is supplied with computers and peripheral devices from non-party company on November 26, 2007, and paid 00 won (including value added tax) in total to non-party company on November 29, 2007, as the price for goods. The plaintiff submitted a written estimate to WW Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "WW Investment") that "the price of computer and peripheral devices is 00 won (excluding value added tax)". The newCC acquired 00 won (excluding value added tax) computer and peripheral devices from the plaintiff and 200 won (value added tax), and received 00 won (value-added tax invoices) out of the supply price for new facilities excluding 00 won (value-added tax), and the defendant received 100 won (value-added tax invoices) out of the supply price for new facilities 200 won (value-added tax).

According to these facts, the Plaintiff left a margin of distribution of KRW 000 [The purchase price - KRW 000 - purchase price of KRW 000 x90 %). Nonparty Company issued purchase tax invoices on December 29, 2007, but issued the purchase tax invoices on December 29, 2007 according to the statement by HongB, but did not issue the purchase tax invoices on December 29, 2007. If the amount, other than value-added tax, was returned to the account of the PC company, out of the amount equivalent to the supply value of the purchase tax invoices issued additionally, was returned to the account of the PC company, the purchase tax invoice must be prepared prior to the date of re-transfer. Considering the above facts, the Defendant did not investigate the newCC, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the money remitted to NewCC was processed and sold, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

③ On December 14, 2007, the purchase tax invoice as of December 14, 2007; according to the Gap evidence No. 5; the plaintiff may recognize the fact that he remitted KRW 000 to the non-party company on December 14, 2007. According to such fact-finding, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was supplied with KRW 00 won goods from the non-party company and remitted KRW 000,000 including value-added tax, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that it was completed without a real transaction.

4. With respect to this E; Gap evidence Nos. 7, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 9: E is registered as a business name on July 10, 2007; the report of business closure was made on June 30, 2008; HongB, a bad credit holder, HH on July 30, 2007 under this E; HH Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "H") and "H acquired 50 PC for game games from the plaintiff to E for 18 months; EB concluded a contract on the loan of 00 won for the above red PC (excluding value-added tax), and this EB appears to have concluded a contract on the loan of 200 won for the loan of red PC to H to 200,000 won, not for the transfer of EB funds to 200,000 won under the name of the head of the Tong.

⑤ The Plaintiff supplied computers and peripheral devices from Nonparty Company to Nonparty Company on December 28, 2007, and paid to Nonparty Company KRW 000 (including value added tax) on December 31, 2007. The Plaintiff submitted a written estimate to WW Investment that “the price of computer and peripheral devices is KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.” KimGG acquired computers and peripheral devices equivalent to KRW 200,000 ( separate value added tax) from the Plaintiff, and acquired them for 24 months, and paid 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for 20,000,000,000 won for 20,000,000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 20,00,000,00.

According to these facts, if the Plaintiff left a margin of distribution of KRW 000 [Sales KRW 000 - purchase price of KRW 000 - purchase price of KRW 000 x90 %), and if the money other than value-added tax out of the supply value of the purchase tax invoice issued additionally re-transfers to the PC’s account, the purchase tax invoice should be prepared prior to the date of re-transfer. The date the non-party company remitted to the MF by the non-party company is prior to the date of preparation of the purchase tax invoice, and the Defendant did not conduct an investigation into KimGG or EF, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the money remitted to the MF is processed sale or purchase, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

6) On the part of the evidence No. 6-1 through 4, and No. 10, the plaintiff was supplied with computers and peripheral devices from the non-party company. On December 27, 2007, the plaintiff submitted a written estimate that "the price of computer and peripheral devices (excluding value-added tax)" is 00 won in WW investment. Park J acquired WW investment and WW investment from the plaintiff for 24 months, and leased WW investment facilities for 24 months, and LJ acquired WW investment and paid WW facilities rental fees of 00 won per month from the plaintiff, and ParkJ concluded a facility rental agreement with the non-party company, which provides that "The sales proceeds of money remitted from the non-party company from the non-party company are 35,00 won transferred from the non-party company," and it is not reasonable to recognize that WW investment and WW is a transfer of money to the non-party company."

7. A new KK: The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the money remitted to a new KK is a processing purchase, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on the premise that each remitted money listed in Table 1, Table 2 is related to processing sale and purchase.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.